August 25, 20187 yr Hello everyone, First of all, sorry if this has been answered but I looked for over an hour now trying to trouble shoot this issue and followed the instructions with no progress, it's left me stuck. I would rather just ask at this point and look stupid than go insane :( The issue in short: --------Setup -------- My SSD - Crucial_CT275MX300SSD1 275GB Pool HDD - 4x 4TB WD REDs (1 Used for Parity) My network setup is ethernet from home router to switch to devices (all gigbit ports) --------Cache Setup-------- 1) I have added the cache 2) I have enabled the caches 3) have set the setting to prefer on shares --------Test I've done -------- Transfer 3GB Video File Folder 1 - Games (perfer cache settings) 12.2 MB/second Folder 2 - Family (no cache setting) 12.2 MB/second --------Help Please-------- I have no difference in speed. I don't know what settings I have missed. I followed youtube videos and the guides on here and looks pretty striaght forward but seems I might have messed up somewhere? Any help to resolving this would be very much appericated. Thank you.
August 25, 20187 yr What is your topology? Is your windows box connected with a CAT5e or better cable directly to the same switch as your unraid box? How fast is the source disk? Do both unraid and windows report being connected to the network at 1Gb?
August 25, 20187 yr Those speeds look like 100M Ethernet instead of 1G. Also, this has nothing to do with your speeds, but make sure you understand the difference between cache-yes and cache-prefer. Post diagnostics and maybe we can tell more.
August 25, 20187 yr Author 1 hour ago, jonathanm said: What is your topology? Is your windows box connected with a CAT5e or better cable directly to the same switch as your unraid box? How fast is the source disk? Do both unraid and windows report being connected to the network at 1Gb? It's a windows machine connected to the unraid server. The cable is CAT5e RJ45 [https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00BKXWRVG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1#productDetails] They both are connected to this switch [https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00AFVB41S/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1] Source disk is Crucial SSD MX300 [http://uk.crucial.com/gbr/en/ct275mx300ssd1] Windows I don't know where to look for it on the unraid menu, where should I look? 1 hour ago, trurl said: Those speeds look like 100M Ethernet instead of 1G. Also, this has nothing to do with your speeds, but make sure you understand the difference between cache-yes and cache-prefer. Post diagnostics and maybe we can tell more. I had done a test with a few folders with Yes and prefer and still the same speeds no matter what I did. I did a few restarts and disabled plugins to make sure it nothing else was affecting it. I also saw the folders and files on the cache drive so it does put them there and I'd even invoked the mover to check and it did move them so I'm lost. syslog.txt Thanks guys for responding. Edited August 25, 20187 yr by BigBoss
August 25, 20187 yr 27 minutes ago, BigBoss said: I had done a test with a few folders with Yes and prefer and still the same speeds no matter what I did. 2 hours ago, trurl said: this has nothing to do with your speeds, but make sure you understand the difference between cache-yes and cache-prefer. Many people are confused about those settings and wind up filling up their cache drive. Shares set to cache-prefer will never get moved from cache. Instead, they will get moved to cache. Please see this link and reconsider if prefer is really what you intend: https://lime-technology.com/forums/topic/46802-faq-for-unraid-v6/?page=2#comment-537383 Please don't give us your syslog. Instead, go to Tools - Diagnostics and post the complete diagnostics zip, which contains syslog but also contains other useful things. It is those other things I am more interested in seeing.
August 25, 20187 yr Author 1 minute ago, trurl said: Many people are confused about those settings and wind up filling up their cache drive. Shares set to cache-prefer will never get moved from cache. Instead, they will get moved to cache. Please see this link and reconsider if prefer is really what you intend: https://lime-technology.com/forums/topic/46802-faq-for-unraid-v6/?page=2#comment-537383 Please don't give us your syslog. Instead, go to Tools - Diagnostics and post the complete diagnostics zip, which contains syslog but also contains other useful things. It is those other things I am more interested in seeing. I did have the help on and this is a brand new setup, all the disk were fomatted so no way Cache should be near full and I can see it's pretty much empty so perfer shouldn't be an issue right. Attached as requested. bigboss-diagnostics-20180825-2211.zip
August 25, 20187 yr Just now, BigBoss said: I did have the help on and this is a brand new setup, all the disk were fomatted so no way Cache should be near full and I can see it's pretty much empty so perfer shouldn't be an issue right. It is not the issue right now. It has nothing at all to do with the speeds. It will never have anything to do with the speeds. But it is likely to be an issue in the very near future if you don't pay attention to the difference between cache-yes and cache-prefer. Anything you write to a cache-prefer share will stay on cache. It will never be moved to the array. This setting has caused many people to fill up their cache because keeping all their data on cache forever was not what they intended and they were surprised when it happened. Cache-prefer is appropriate for a few shares, but definitely not appropriate in most cases. Please read the link I gave.
August 25, 20187 yr Author 3 minutes ago, trurl said: It is not the issue right now. It has nothing at all to do with the speeds. It will never have anything to do with the speeds. But it is likely to be an issue in the very near future if you don't pay attention to the difference between cache-yes and cache-prefer. Anything you write to a cache-prefer share will stay on cache. It will never be moved to the array. This setting has caused many people to fill up their cache because keeping all their data on cache forever was not what they intended and they were surprised when it happened. Cache-prefer is appropriate for a few shares, but definitely not appropriate in most cases. Please read the link I gave. I know, thank you for the link it was one I saw before I posted the thread. I had it on prefer just to see if it would've made any difference. Thank you for warning me anyways as I know it's a bad idea for in the long run if I did that appericate you're also giving me tips.
August 25, 20187 yr Now that I've looked at your diagnostics, the only cache-prefer shares you have are those that should be. And you only have one share cache-yes. Your earlier screenshot showed you had Prefer for a share that didn't need it, but I see you have changed it to Yes now. You have 2 other shares set to cache-no, so those will get written directly to the array. Here is the part of your diagnostics I wanted to see, where it says Speed: 100Mb/s Settings for bond0: Supported ports: [ ] Supported link modes: Not reported Supported pause frame use: No Supports auto-negotiation: No Supported FEC modes: Not reported Advertised link modes: Not reported Advertised pause frame use: No Advertised auto-negotiation: No Advertised FEC modes: Not reported Speed: 100Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Other PHYAD: 0 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: off Link detected: yes driver: bonding version: 3.7.1 firmware-version: 2 expansion-rom-version: bus-info: supports-statistics: no supports-test: no supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: no supports-priv-flags: no -------------------------------- Settings for eth0: Supported ports: [ TP ] Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Supported pause frame use: Symmetric Receive-only Supports auto-negotiation: Yes Supported FEC modes: Not reported Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Advertised pause frame use: Symmetric Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes Advertised FEC modes: Not reported Speed: 100Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Twisted Pair PHYAD: 0 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: on MDI-X: Unknown Current message level: 0x000060e4 (24804) link ifup rx_err tx_err hw wol Link detected: yes driver: alx version: firmware-version: expansion-rom-version: bus-info: 0000:02:00.0 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: no supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: no supports-priv-flags: no --------------------------------
August 25, 20187 yr Author 15 minutes ago, trurl said: Now that I've looked at your diagnostics, the only cache-prefer shares you have are those that should be. And you only have one share cache-yes. Your earlier screenshot showed you had Prefer for a share that didn't need it, but I see you have changed it to Yes now. You have 2 other shares set to cache-no, so those will get written directly to the array. Here is the part of your diagnostics I wanted to see, where it says Speed: 100Mb/s Settings for bond0: Supported ports: [ ] Supported link modes: Not reported Supported pause frame use: No Supports auto-negotiation: No Supported FEC modes: Not reported Advertised link modes: Not reported Advertised pause frame use: No Advertised auto-negotiation: No Advertised FEC modes: Not reported Speed: 100Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Other PHYAD: 0 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: off Link detected: yes driver: bonding version: 3.7.1 firmware-version: 2 expansion-rom-version: bus-info: supports-statistics: no supports-test: no supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: no supports-priv-flags: no -------------------------------- Settings for eth0: Supported ports: [ TP ] Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Supported pause frame use: Symmetric Receive-only Supports auto-negotiation: Yes Supported FEC modes: Not reported Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Advertised pause frame use: Symmetric Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes Advertised FEC modes: Not reported Speed: 100Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Twisted Pair PHYAD: 0 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: on MDI-X: Unknown Current message level: 0x000060e4 (24804) link ifup rx_err tx_err hw wol Link detected: yes driver: alx version: firmware-version: expansion-rom-version: bus-info: 0000:02:00.0 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: no supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: no supports-priv-flags: no -------------------------------- Excuse me for asking but I'm not sure what I'm limited by here? What's bottlenecking my speed?
August 25, 20187 yr Author Okay I actually think it maybe to do with the ethernet port on the motherboard. MSI - GD65 https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/z87-gd65-gaming.html Killer E2200 I saw two other threads on google suggesting it could be driver issue with Killer Ethernet ports?
August 26, 20187 yr It looks as though the Killer E2205 isn't fully supported by the Atheros driver that's being loaded. Other people have had similar issues with Killer E2000 series chips. You might need to disable it and use a NIC on a PCIe card instead.
August 29, 20187 yr Author On 8/26/2018 at 2:47 AM, John_M said: It looks as though the Killer E2205 isn't fully supported by the Atheros driver that's being loaded. Other people have had similar issues with Killer E2000 series chips. You might need to disable it and use a NIC on a PCIe card instead. I emailed support to ask about the drivers but no reply yet. Would something like this work: https://www.amazon.co.uk/UGREEN-Gigabit-Express-Network-Ethernet/dp/B01MSWQMYY/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1535564152&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=lan+card&psc=1 Or do you know of any PCIe cards which will work for sure? I'm not sure what to look for compatability wise.
August 29, 20187 yr It would work but it is based on a Realtek chip. Although it's supported the performance leaves a bit to be desired. A much better choice would be this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-EXPI9301CTBLK-PRO1000-Network-PCIex/dp/B001CY0P7G/ The big advantages are the facts that the Intel PRO1000 can do some of the checksum calculations that the Realtek has to give to the CPU and that Intel co-operated with the Linux kernel maintainers and provided code for the driver while the Realtek driver is reverse engineered because Realtek is only interested in writing a driver for Windows.
August 31, 20187 yr Author On 8/30/2018 at 12:21 AM, John_M said: It would work but it is based on a Realtek chip. Although it's supported the performance leaves a bit to be desired. A much better choice would be this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-EXPI9301CTBLK-PRO1000-Network-PCIex/dp/B001CY0P7G/ The big advantages are the facts that the Intel PRO1000 can do some of the checksum calculations that the Realtek has to give to the CPU and that Intel co-operated with the Linux kernel maintainers and provided code for the driver while the Realtek driver is reverse engineered because Realtek is only interested in writing a driver for Windows. Just to update and for future reference with anyone with a Killer NIC. The cheap £10 one works! I did order intel one aswell so will do a test with that to compare to see if it makes any difference. I would recommend the UGREEN-Gigabit-Express-Network-Ethernet for a quick fix if your current onboard Ethernet NIC doesn't work with Unraid.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.